Cross-Border Railways Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

12.32 pm

The Second Minister for Transport (Mr Ng Chee Meng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Connectivity is key to Singapore's economic future. Better connectivity for people, goods, information and capital allows us to attract new ideas, talent and investments and opens up new markets for Singapore firms.

As we expand Singapore's connections to the rest of the world via our air and sea ports, it is equally important to strengthen our links closer to home. Current connectivity with our nearest neighbour, Malaysia, is good. More than S$80 billion worth of goods and 200 million people traverse between our two countries each year. The Kuala Lumpur (KL)-Singapore High Speed Rail (HSR) and the Johor-Singapore Rapid Transit System, or RTS Link, will take this connectivity to a new level. The Prime Ministers of the two countries have called these "game changers". They will draw our peoples and countries closer together, with a greater stake in each other's continued growth and success.

The HSR, scheduled to be operational in 2026, will provide a 90-minute, city-to-city connection between KL and Singapore. It can be more convenient than flying and will be much faster than driving. It will be possible to go to KL for a day trip or business meeting, have our meeting there, have lunch there even, and still get home in time, in good time for dinner.

The RTS Link will be operating from 2024 and has the capacity to move up to 10,000 passengers per hour in each direction, about two-thirds of the peak-hour traffic between Johor and Singapore. It will, therefore, ease traffic volume along the Causeway and the Second Link, freeing up capacity for more goods to flow.

Implementation of the HSR is already well under way. Both countries signed the HSR Bilateral Agreement in 2016. Since then, officials from both countries have been working closely to develop detailed plans for the construction, operation and regulation of the HSR. The two Infrastructure Companies from both countries are preparing to call a joint tender for the HSR Assets Company, or "AssetsCo", by the end of the year. We have received strong indications of interest from key players from different countries and we look forward to meeting this key project milestone.

As for the RTS Link, we are completing our joint advanced engineering studies. We expect to move swiftly into implementation after the signing of the Bilateral Agreement at the end of this year.

It will be an exciting few years ahead, as we work alongside our Malaysian counterparts to gear up not just for one, but for two cross-border railway projects.

The Ministry of Transport (MOT) proposes to enact the new Cross-Border Railways (CBR) Bill to enable the construction, operation and regulation of our cross-border railway projects within Singapore borders. Malaysia will likewise consider how best to implement these terms in their domestic legislation.

The Bill will serve two key purposes. Firstly, it will support the planning and construction of our upcoming cross-border railways; and secondly, it will put in place the necessary regulatory framework to ensure safe and secure cross-border railway operations.

Let me now explain the key provisions in this Bill.

The first part of the Bill pertains to the planning and construction of cross-border railways within Singapore. Clauses 4 to 6 set out the process to develop and finalise plans and maps for the construction of cross-border railways. This ensures transparency and accountability in the planning of cross-border railways, even as we strive to meet our ambitious timelines for completion. Plans and maps clearly showing the railway area and any land affected by construction of cross-border railways must be approved by the Chief Planner and made available to the public for inspection, just as what we do today for the construction of domestic Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) lines. Detailed plans for both the HSR and the RTS Link are being developed and we expect to finalise them in accordance with these provisions in the coming year or so.

In line with the approach for constructing MRT and Light Rail Transit (LRT) lines under the Rapid Transit Systems Act today, clauses 7 to 16 will enable the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to access land for the purposes of constructing, operating and maintaining cross-border railways. As per current practice, notice will be given to affected landowners of any works. Should landowners suffer any damages to their land or structures on the land, they will be eligible for compensation under the Fourth Schedule of the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act, similar to other Acts under LTA's purview today.

In September, LTA has incorporated a wholly-owned subsidiary, SG HSR Pte Ltd, to be Singapore's Infrastructure Company, or InfraCo, for the HSR project. This arrangement allows us to dedicate resources to the development of the HSR, while allowing LTA to maintain its focus on domestic priorities.

Accordingly, clauses 18 to 20 allow the Minister for Transport to give effect to an arrangement where an entity other than LTA is appointed as Singapore's InfraCo to build, fund, own and maintain the cross-border railway infrastructure within Singapore. This allows SG HSR Pte Ltd to exercise the powers at clauses 7 to 14 in place of LTA, where necessary, to fulfil its responsibilities in the HSR project.

Taken together, these provisions enable LTA to coordinate the planning and construction of cross-border railways expeditiously to meet the targeted completion of the RTS Link by end-2024, and the HSR by end-2026.

The second part of the Bill sets out a framework to give effect to the regulatory approach for our cross-border railway projects, which will focus on safety and security of operations.

Commercial arrangements, such as the performance standards for the HSR and RTS Link services, will not be stipulated in legislation. Instead, they will be specified separately in contractual agreements signed between the respective commercial entities.

To facilitate such an approach, clauses 21 to 29 set out the contractual arrangements that define two key functions in cross-border railway operations. Specifically, clauses 25 and 29 require any entity performing either of these functions to obtain a licence before it can provide services for passenger train operations. First, the entity providing and maintaining railway assets for operation of cross-border passenger train services is referred to in the Bill as the "Railway Assets Operator". Second, the entity operating cross-border passenger train services is referred to as the "Train Service Operator".

LTA will regulate these functions for each cross-border railway entity through the general licensing provisions set out at clauses 30 to 44. This includes provisions that empower LTA to issue codes of practice, directions and provisional orders to ensure safe and secure cross-border railway operations. In the event of non-compliance, clause 39 empowers LTA to suspend or cancel a licence, or to impose a financial penalty of up to one million Singapore dollars or 10% of the licensee's annual revenue, whichever is higher.

To ensure the safety and security of cross-border railway operations, this Bill includes provisions to empower authorised officers to inspect, investigate and enforce regulatory requirements.

Clauses 49 to 53 set out the investigation and enforcement powers available to officers appointed by LTA as rail safety inspectors and independent safety auditors. Any person who obstructs the rail safety inspector or independent safety auditor in carrying out his or her duties shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.

Clause 58 empowers the Minister for Transport to appoint a cross-border railway security agency to coordinate security matters for cross-border railways. The cross-border railway security agency will work closely with the Ministry of Home Affairs and Home Team departments to issue and enforce security requirements for cross-border railways. This includes passenger checks required at the station, and standard procedures for responding to security incidents.

Given LTA's experience in ensuring the security of the public transport system in Singapore, we intend to appoint LTA as the cross-border railway security agency under this Bill. This will facilitate coordination of security measures and requirements across domestic public transport and cross-border railway operations.

To implement the regulatory framework proposed in this Bill, we will also be making related amendments to other Acts. In particular, the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act will be amended to broaden LTA's functions to cover cross-border railway construction, operation and regulation. The compensation framework in the LTA Act will also be broadened to cover compensation that affected landowners may be eligible for under this Bill.

The Railways Act and Rapid Transit Systems Act will be amended to clarify their scope. In particular, the Rapid Transit Systems Act applies only to domestic MRTs and LRTs. The Railways Act does not apply to any MRT or LRT that comes under the Rapid Transit Systems Act nor the HSR and RTS Link, which will come under the CBR Bill.

The Arms and Explosives Act will also be amended to extend powers to enforcement officers under this Bill to arrest without warrant persons committing dangerous offences, to enforce security of the cross-border railway at all times.

As a whole, the regulatory framework in the new Bill largely takes reference from our domestic railway experience but is adapted to suit the unique commercial and regulatory requirements of the HSR and RTS Link Projects.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the HSR and the RTS Link will bring exciting opportunities for Singapore and Singaporeans. There will be new business opportunities, greater access to resources and more travel options to the Malaysian hinterland. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

12.43 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the CBR Bill is an important Bill in various ways. It provides legislative support for the construction, management and operation of both the proposed KL-Singapore HSR and the Johor Bahru-Singapore RTS. Both the HSR and RTS will likely enhance cross-border trade and labour movement.

I will first touch on equity control provisions. Mr Speaker, last month, I spoke at the Second Reading of the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) (Amendment) Bill. In that Bill, we saw the introduction of onerous share transfer requirements. There is an obligation for a person becoming a 5% controller of a designated entity to notify the MPA. A person will also need to seek the prior approval of MPA before becoming a 25%, 50% or 75% controller or an indirect controller of a designated entity.

There is a very detailed section on what it means to be an associate or subsidiary for purposes of determining direct or indirect controller of an entity. Any person intending to dispose interest that would result in that person's shareholding falling below 75% or 50% of the total interest in a designated entity will be required to obtain prior approval from MPA.

When I asked for the rationale for the introduction of such onerous requirements, Senior Minister of State Dr Lam Pin Min said the following – and please do bear with me as I quote from him below as I think the rationale he has explained provided justification for the Government to introduce these controls – and I quote:

"The intention of the equity control requirements is not to interfere with the day-to-day operations of the designated entities or restrict its commercial flexibility, but rather to require MPA's approval to be sought for transactions crossing stipulated significant thresholds in equity interest.

Under the Companies Act, a 5% shareholder is considered a substantial shareholder. Although a 5% shareholder typically does not have significant powers to drastically influence the direction of a company, it is still important for MPA to be informed of any new substantial shareholders of its designated public licensees.

Shareholders with 25% or 50% interest, however, wield significant voting power in a company's decisions. A shareholder who has more than 25% equity interest can veto special resolutions under the Companies Act. A shareholder with more than 50% equity interest can pass ordinary resolutions. These are the reasons why MPA should have some regulatory oversight on shareholders seeking to reach 25% and 50% of the equity interest respectively.

On the other hand, a shareholder will lose its ability to control special resolutions if its equity interest falls below 75%. It will lose its ability to control ordinary resolutions if its equity interest falls below 50%. As these are important corporate decisions that could impact the overall direction of the company, MPA should maintain oversight on whether it is in our national interest for any incumbent shareholders to relinquish such voting powers…

The acquisition controls enable MPA to have oversight of single persons becoming a new major shareholder of a designated entity. The disposal controls grant MPA oversight of existing shareholders from selling interest in a designated entity, whether to a single or multiple persons."

Mr Speaker, Sir, having heard the Senior Minister of State on his justifications for the equity controls provisions in the MPA Bill, I wonder whether there are any reasons why the same equity controls provisions are deemed not necessary for the CBR Bill.

The CBR Bill is an important Bill providing for the construction, maintenance, operation and regulation of cross-border railways between Singapore and Malaysia. The Bill provides that the Government may enter into a concession agreement relating to the construction, maintenance, operation and improvement of the railway infrastructure of a cross-border railway with what is called a concessionaire. The Bill further provides for the concessionaire to appoint and enter into contract with one railway assets operator and a train service operator, both of whom are supposed to be regulated under the proposed Bill.

If one regards container or port terminal operators to be important enough to be subject to approvals for equity changes under the MPA Act, then surely, for a Bill like the present one involving, say, one operator to be the railway assets operator and another one operator to be the train service operator, there is definitely a cause for the Government to impose similar equity control requirements. There will be concerns relating to customs, immigration and, of course, security as we are talking of many trains travelling between two countries on a daily basis.

There may also be issues of economic security as we would like the train system to run profitably and efficiently. As this is a cross-border railway and in this climate where terrorist threats cannot be ruled out, the operators will need to pay attention and take steps to ensure the security of the rail assets and infrastructure as well as the security of the services and the passengers, staff as well as other users of the rail assets and facilities.

We need to be assured of the shareholding of the companies who are concessionaires, licensees or operators, lest they fall into wrong hands and bring unnecessary risks and consequences.

For the same reasons as the Government has argued in the recent debate for the MPA (Amendment) Bill, surely the same equity controls provisions introduced in the MPA Act must also apply to all concessionaires, operators, subcontractors or licensees at all times or there will be some inconsistency. I look forward to the Minister’s reply on this.

Next, I will touch on the acquisition of private land. Clause 8 of the Bill empowers LTA to, for purposes of constructing the railways or building-related infrastructure, enter private land and take possession of the land, and carry out acts like removing any building or structure, digging tunnel and constructing railway facilities. These are serious interferences with the rights of an owner of a private property.

Under clause 8(3), owners must be given at least two months’ notice. Mr Speaker, two months’ notice is too short for such draconian acts of taking possession of land, removing building or building tunnels on one’s land. If the work that is going to be done under this clause compels the owners to have to stop living there or to stop their businesses on the land, the Government should give a longer notice.

When a person decides to buy a private property, it will normally take up to about 10 weeks to 12 weeks for the conveyancing process, that is, the legal process for the transfer of title, to complete. So, if a two-month notice is given under this clause, the owner of the property will probably not be able to have sufficient time to buy another property and complete the conveyancing process, not to mention to have time to look around for a suitable replacement property or time to do renovations for the new property. Whether it is a commercial property or a residential property, this is equally unfair. I hope the Government will reconsider this provision to give a longer notice period of, say, at least six months.

Mr Speaker, it is currently unclear whether there are any plans for both the HSR and RTS to run through privately held land in Singapore. Is the Minister able to provide any indication at this point that the new railways will definitely require acquisition of private land?

Next, I touch on the issue of the Independent Safety Auditor. Part 9 of the Bill provides for the appointment of an Independent Safety Auditor as well as rail safety inspectors. Will the Minister please clarify whether the Independent Safety Auditor and the rail safety inspectors will also be auditing or inspecting the maintenance regimes of the railway and associated infrastructures? If the Government does not currently envisage these persons to perform these respective roles in terms of maintenance regimes for trains as well as infrastructure, will the Minister clarify who will perform such roles? Should we, for example, not have a specific provision in the Bill for a maintenance auditor and inspectors, with necessary support from LTA?

In light of the ongoing fiasco regarding the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit's (SMRT’s) maintenance efforts, I would urge the Government to put in place such measures at the beginning so that the cross-border railways can start with the right operational and maintenance regimes and the right corporate culture for operations and maintenance, and avoid the pitfalls we have seen with SMRT maintenance as well as LTA’s oversight of SMRT’s maintenance. As the cross-border railways involve two governments and possibly foreign concessionaires or licensees, this may be more complicated to manage. Therefore, I hope the Government will get this right from the start so that we do not have this fiasco with poor operating conditions and maintenance down the road.

Next, I touch on the lack of provisions relating to conservation, environmental protection, public health risk, environmental impact assessment (EIA) and heritage impact assessment, as well as lack of provisions for public feedback and objections on these issues.

This Bill involves a major construction project and long-term operation of regular high-speed rail services. However, the Bill is silent on conservation or environmental protection. Construction and operation of the railway will affect the surrounding areas and have a detrimental impact on residents and businesses. There should be provisions for environmental, health and heritage impact assessments both before and during construction as well as periodically during operations to ensure that residents and businesses in the area are not adversely affected by the operations.

If there are environmental or health risks, there should be provisions for mitigation with responsibilities between operators and regulators clearly spelt out. There should also be provisions regulating noise and other forms of pollution to protect people living or working nearby.

There should be due diligence to ascertain: one, whether there are heritage sites nearby; two, if so, how they may be affected by the construction and operation of the railway; and three, what mitigation efforts should be put in place. We should have such measures in place at the onset before any problem even crops up.

Clause 5 of the Bill pertains to the preparation and publishing of railway plans and maps and the finality of such plans and maps. Far beyond what are provided in clause 5, I think we should allow: one, greater public information about planning decisions before they are made; and two, public feedback about such planning decisions. In that regard, clause 6, which provides that no person has a right of objection to the delineation of land as railway area, should be reconsidered or amended.

I would like to ask the Government how can the public give feedback or lodge any objection. Will the Government consider incorporating similar provisions on the tendering of objections and representation as well as hearings and public inquiries seen in the Planning Act and Planning (Masterplan) Rules?

Next, I touch on the possibility of double punishment. I would also like to clarify with the Minister how the Government proposes to handle the possibility of both regulators from opposite sides of the Causeway meting out penalties against the concessionaire, licensees, operators or even subcontractors for the same infringements or breaches of any regulatory requirement.

Has the Malaysian Parliament introduced an equivalent Bill and looked into this issue? Both regulators should make this clear to the concessionaire, licensees or operators at the onset.

Finally, on the progress for the projects. On the issue of meeting timelines, as the projects also substantially involve Malaysia, and quite heavily so, is the Minister able to tell this House whether he is confident that both countries will be able to abide by the projected timelines for construction and launch of the projects? Should we be concerned at all whether the outcome of the next Malaysian General Elections may have any effect on the progress of the projects? Perhaps the Minister can reassure the House.

Finally, may I also ask the Minister to assure this House that the Government will ensure that all contracts will be awarded to companies which will be able to provide sound and quality construction or engineering work that will not saddle us with future problems of poor design, workmanship, repairs and inefficiency?

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

12.56 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, the KL-Singapore HSR and Johor-Singapore RTS will improve connectivity for residents and strengthen bilateral ties between Malaysia and Singapore.

This Bill paves the way for its construction and it is heartening to see that we are moving swiftly along to the fruition of this ambitious project. I applaud the Government and all the hard work put in to ensure that this project is on track and on schedule.

I only have three quick points of clarifications to raise, based on feedback from the public, and similar to some of the points that Mr Dennis Tan had raised.

Firstly, clause 8 of the Bill gives powers to LTA to enter land which is not state land or land owned by LTA for activities, such as construction, maintenance and improvements to infrastructure. I understand that it is currently unclear if the HSR line will run under any privately-held land in Singapore. Can the Minister shed light on this issue as it is on the minds of many Singaporeans? If the Minister is unable to provide further details at this point, can he at least clarify when such details will be available and whether his Ministry will be doing some form of public consultation with regard to this before any decision is being made?

Secondly, can the Minister clarify whether the construction of the HSR line will affect any of our green areas? Will EIAs be conducted before the construction of the HSR line and will the results of such EIAs be made public and available online?

Lastly, under clause 58, a "cross-border railway security agency" will be designated. Can the Minister clarify why there is a need for this new agency? Can the Minister clarify if the security measures will be enhanced, compared with the existing Shuttle Tebrau operated by Keretapi Tanah Melayu (KTM) linking Johor Bahru and Singapore? Would it be comparable to security measures at Changi Airport? The Minister also mentioned that LTA will be the cross-border railway security agency. Will it not be better for the Singapore Police Force (SPF) to be this agency since the public transport security command (TRANSCOM) is currently under SPF?

Lastly, as its operations are cross-border, will we be working with relevant Malaysian agencies or persons to carry out its functions for this security agency? Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

12.58 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, the KL-Singapore HSR project will benefit Singaporeans and Malaysians greatly and will deepen the close relationship of both countries. I am sure residents on both sides of the Causeway are very much looking forward to the greater access and convenience it will provide as well as the additional economic benefits to both nations. We can certainly expect a boost to tourism for both Singapore and Malaysia. In the future, travellers may even use it as a link to Thailand, Laos, China and other countries in south and central Asia and Europe. In fact, recently, I learned that Laos had started building a railway project linking China to Thailand.

I would like to ask the Minister if we have any estimates for the economic benefits that HSR will bring. For example, what will be the estimated number of travellers per year; the planned economic activities and industrial developments around the railway; how many jobs will be created; and if there will be technology transfers and plans for the training of staff? It is also important to quantify the expected impact on air travel and coach services once HSR starts its operations.

The CBR Bill will set out the terms for the construction, maintenance, operations and regulation. Would the Government share what is the agreed operating model and the finalised shareholding for HSR? Will the operation model of the railway station be similar to the existing service model at Changi Airport?

I would also like to ask what will be the operator’s service recovery requirements to minimise service disruption. In the event of a potential terrorist attack, under what conditions would the Government be suspending the railway services? Would we need consensus from our Malaysian counterparts?

Next, I seek details about the funding for the railway and the stations. Will both governments issue bonds to investors to finance the entire project or raise funds through capital markets to allow Singaporeans and investors to own the equity of the operators or assets? Will there be rental and advertising revenue and which parties will be entitled to their collection?

Residents have also asked me for the indicative ticket prices. How will they be set and will they be benchmarked against comparable major cities with similar services? Will advance ticketing systems and cashless payment be introduced to allow customers to book via phone and online?

Finally, I would like to seek more information about our station’s accessibility. Will the Government be connecting the railway station to the Jurong East MRT station and bus interchange for the convenience of passengers? Will there be ample car park lots for business and day travellers who may leave their cars behind for the train ride? May I suggest we allocate ample taxi lanes, similar to what is provided at Changi Airport, for taxis to pick up travellers? I conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Second Minister Ng Chee Meng.

1.03 pm

Mr Ng Chee Meng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members for their questions and suggestions.

The HSR and RTS Link are strategic projects that will significantly enhance connectivity between Singapore and Malaysia, strengthening the linkages between our economies and our peoples. There were many good questions asked. I will try to answer each in turn.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about the economic benefits that the HSR will bring. Every day, more than 20,000 people travel between Singapore and KL. We expect a sizeable portion of these travellers to switch to HSR. The distance between KL and Singapore is about 350 kilometres, and this is widely regarded as a “sweet spot” or the ideal distance for HSR lines. Internationally, HSR lines of this distance have done very well. These include the London-Paris, Paris-Lyon and Tokyo-Osaka lines. We are confident that the HSR between Singapore and KL will be well-received.

In addition, we expect HSR to catalyse new businesses and tourism between the two cities. The HSR terminus is also the focal point, as Members may have already known, for the development of our second Central Business District (CBD) in Jurong Lake District, which can support close to 200,000 jobs.

Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Gan asked about the agreed operating model for HSR and how the Government intends to finance the project. Both countries have agreed on the commercial model for HSR. First, each country will appoint an Infrastructure Company, or InfraCo, to build, fund, own and maintain the civil infrastructure within their respective countries. Singapore has appointed SG HSR Private Limited as our InfraCo. We are assessing what the most cost-efficient and appropriate way to finance SG HSR.

Second, through an international tender, an Assets Company, or AssetsCo, will be appointed to provide and maintain the HSR trains and railway systems. Singapore and Malaysia are in the final stages of preparations and will be calling the AssetsCo tender by the end of the year. Finally, both countries will call for a tender to jointly appoint an Operating Company for International Services, or OpCo International, to operate the cross-border HSR services. Malaysia will separately appoint an OpCo Domestic to operate HSR services within Malaysia. The AssetsCo and OpCos will take care of their own financing.

On the question of equity change from Mr Dennis Tan, the InfraCos of both Singapore and Malaysia will require the entities that are jointly appointed, like AssetsCo or OpCo International that I mentioned earlier, to seek specific approval before they can make significant changes to their equity composition. This will be stipulated in the contract rather than in the legislation.

To facilitate the development of HSR and the RTS Link within Singapore, this Bill contains provisions similar to those found in existing Acts for public infrastructure. This includes the Rapid Transit Systems Act and the Street Works Act. The proposed clauses will ensure accountability and fair process in the planning and construction of cross-border railways.

Mr Louis Ng and, in some aspects, Mr Dennis Tan, have asked about the potential impact of the HSR development on landowners and our green areas, and when details would be made available to the public. Detailed engineering studies to determine the railway alignment are ongoing. We expect to finalise these plans in the coming year or so. We will strive to minimise the impact of HSR development on landowners. However, should land acquisition or temporary displacement be needed, we will give sufficient time for occupants to relocate, specifically beyond two months. We will go on a case-by-case basis. As part of the planning process, LTA will also study the environmental impact of the HSR project before finalising the design of HSR.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about the accessibility of the HSR terminus to local public transport options. The design work on the Jurong East terminus is still ongoing. However, the terminus will be close to two existing MRT lines at the Jurong East MRT Station, the North-South and East-West Lines, as well as new MRT lines, namely, the Jurong Regional Line and the Cross Island Line. It will also be next to the future integrated transport hub in Jurong East. All these will provide a wide range of local public transport options for any passengers coming to Singapore, which is also in line with our commitment to building a "car-lite" nation.

Last but not least, I thank Mr Gan Thiam Poh for his suggestion to allocate ample taxi lanes to facilitate onward transfers. We will take this into consideration as part of our terminus design.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh also asked if there will be advanced ticketing systems and cashless payments to allow customers to book tickets for HSR via phone or online. In October this year, LTA and MyHSR Corporation invited companies to share their experience in developing ticketing and fare collection systems. Our vision is for HSR to incorporate the latest ticketing technology and to deliver a seamless and passenger-friendly travel experience.

Mr Speaker, the second key purpose of the Bill is to establish a robust regulatory framework to govern cross-border railway operations. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, the regulatory approach largely takes reference from our domestic railway experience but is adapted to suit the unique commercial and regulatory requirements of cross-border railway projects.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about how fares will be set and whether they will be benchmarked to similar services elsewhere. He also asked about the operator’s service recovery requirements. Commercial arrangements, such as performance standards and service recovery requirements, will be specified separately in contracts signed between the respective commercial entities. This is the common approach for railway projects that span across countries. In addition, both countries have agreed that fares will be set commercially by respective train service operators and will not be regulated.

Mr Dennis Tan asked about the maintenance regime and the auditors. The rail safety auditors will also double up to audit the maintenance regime of the entities. And on double punishments that Mr Dennis Tan has asked, we will work with our Malaysian counterparts to harmonise the regulatory regime so that we would not have double punishments.

On security regulation, Mr Louis Ng asked whether Singapore will be working with relevant Malaysian agencies and whether security measures will be enhanced compared to the existing KTM Berhad Tebrau Shuttle. Both countries have agreed on a common set of security outcomes to ensure that the cross-border railway operations are safe and secure. Detailed operating arrangements are being worked out by the agencies.

Both countries have agreed that HSR and the RTS Link will offer co-located Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) facilities. For example, passengers travelling from Malaysia into Singapore via the HSR or RTS Link will be able to clear the immigration and security checks of both countries’ authorities before they board the train. Upon arrival into Singapore, passengers need not clear immigration and security checks a second time and can transfer seamlessly to local transport options.

Mr Louis Ng asked about the rationale for appointing a cross-border railway security agency in Singapore under this Bill. A single cross-border railway security agency will help in coordinating regulatory and enforcement efforts across the various security agencies in Singapore. As I have mentioned in my earlier speech, we intend to appoint LTA as the cross-border railway security agency, building on its current role in regulating and enforcing domestic public transport security.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about the situations in which the Government would consider suspending HSR operations and whether Malaysia’s concurrence would be needed. In the event of, for example, a terrorist attack or natural disaster, Singapore can suspend cross-border railway services in Singapore and take necessary follow-up measures. Singapore will inform Malaysia as well as any private entities involved about the suspension of services but is not required to seek their concurrence before doing so. This is provided for in clause 56 of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said in my opening speech, connectivity is key to Singapore’s economic future. The HSR and RTS Link projects are game changers that will draw the people of Singapore and Malaysia closer together, with a greater stake in each other’s continued growth and success.

As we work with our Malaysian counterparts on the implementation of our cross-border railway projects, this Bill will provide LTA with the necessary powers to support the development of cross-border railways in Singapore. It will also enable LTA to set out a robust regulatory framework for safe and secure cross-border railway operations.

I thank the different Members for their suggestions and views. With this, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

1.13 pm

Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: I thank the Minister for his answers to the queries that I have raised. Perhaps the Minister has overlooked this issue that I have raised. I raised the issue of a lack of provisions regarding conservation and environmental protection and public health with EIA and heritage impact assessment provisions, and public feedback as well. Will the Minister comment on these?

Mr Ng Chee Meng: Mr Speaker, the provisions will be much like for our MRT and LRT domestic lines. Each line locally that we are proposing will undergo the EIA. Likewise, for the HSR and RTS Link, we will undergo the same process as per our domestic lines. When ready with the engineering studies, we will be providing the necessary information to the public. In fact, we will be looking at this as a hybrid Bill and invite public feedback for further consideration.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Minister, I just want to ask whether the results of the EIA will be made public and available online. Two, I hope that MOT will be engaging the green groups before publishing the results, so that we can consult them on their views again before the report is finalised.

Mr Ng Chee Meng: I thank the Member for the suggestion. We will take consultations with the different groups before making a final decision.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Mr Ng Chee Meng: Mr Speaker, as the Bill is, in our opinion, a hybrid Bill, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 68(1), the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee.

I beg to move, "That the Select Committee on the Cross-Border Railways Bill consist of Mr Speaker as Chairman and the following Members:

(1) Miss Cheng Li Hui,

(2) Mr Low Thia Khiang,

(3) Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim,

(4) Mr Ng Chee Meng,

(5) Mr Sitoh Yih Pin,

(6) Mr Vikram Nair,

(7) Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye."

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That the Select Committee on the Cross-Border Railways Bill consist of Mr Speaker as Chairman and the following Members:

(1) Miss Cheng Li Hui,

(2) Mr Low Thia Khiang,

(3) Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim,

(4) Mr Ng Chee Meng,

(5) Mr Sitoh Yih Pin,

(6) Mr Vikram Nair,

(7) Yong Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye." – [Mr Ng Chee Meng.]

Order for Third Reading read.

The Second Minister for Transport (Mr Ng Chee Meng) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Sir, at the Second Reading in November last year, the House committed the Cross-Border Railways Bill to a Select Committee.

The Select Committee received five written representations, which were all assessed to be reasonable. They contained relevant queries and feedback relating to the Bill's provisions.

The Select Committee has considered the Bill as well as the written representations received. In addition to the textual alterations to the Bill to reflect the change in citation from year 2017 to 2018 and editorial amendments for accuracy, the Committee has recommended two other amendments in relation to clauses 23 and 28 of the Bill.

The original intent of clauses 23 and 28 was to prevent the railway assets operator and the cross-border train service operator from transferring or assigning their contracts to another party that we did not appoint.

However, based on industry feedback, as well as written representations received, we noted that such clauses may deter private financiers from lending to the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail Assets Company, or AssetsCo, for which the tender is on-going. This is because the future cash flows under the AssetsCo contract cannot be used as collateral.

To allow genuine financing and yet prevent illicit transfer of the contracts, the Committee has recommended proposed amendments at clauses 23 and 28 of the Bill. These will allow the transfer or assignment of contracts with the Minister for Transport's approval. It strikes a balance between Government oversight and commercial viability.

The Committee's Report was presented to Members of this House on 14 February 2018. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.